This is the Category on this BEWARErspca Bulletin Board, part of the Global Internet SELF HELP Justice Network at http://SelfHelpJustice.com/ for publishing Details of rspca Shonks & Shysters [ie ones who 'use' the law to cheat others] in the UK. [The server is not in the UK.]

The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG)

Press ReleaseFor Immediate Release18th August 2008

RSPCA hit with bill for cruelty prosecution- in the “heartland of animal cruelty”

The Prosecutions Department of the RSPCA, led by barrister Sally Case, has been handed another large bill for the charity’s donors to pay. This time by Gateshead Magistrates in Tyne and Wear, for prosecuting Michael and Sharon Finnie who mistakenly treated their pet dog Pebbles for fleas when he had a skin condition.

The RSPCA recently sought to characterise Tyne and Wear as the cruellest locality in the UK.

Anne Kasica of the SHG said:

“The Magistrates have sent another clear message to the RSPCA.”

“The message, in my view reads:

‘Stop wasting our valuable court time and resources by prosecuting decent, hard working people who are trying their best and living on a shoestring budget just to get free publicity from a cheap headline’”

Ernest Vine, also of the SHG said:

“The way that the RSPCA have chosen to present their statistics this year is misleading. The SHG don’t believe for a minute that Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, or anywhere in the UK is the ‘heartland of animal cruelty’.”

“In Tyne and Wear, far too many cases are being taken to court by McKeags and the RSPCA. It is this disproportionate prosecution rate that is distorting the statistics.”

“In the past, magistrates gave far too much taxpayers’ money to the RSPCA and their independent expert vets and lawyers. Even failed prosecutions are frequently rewarded, making welfare cases very cheap advertising for the RSPCA.”

“RSPCA lawyers and vets can earn more for an hour than some people earn in a week.”

“The Finnies had clearly tried their best. Why didn’t the RSPCA help them? If the RSPCA had simply provided free veterinary treatment for Pebbles they would not have run up the costs of prosecuting the case and boarding fees for Pebbles.”

“They would also have avoided the heartache that both the Finnies and Pebbles have gone through by being separated.”

“The RSPCA should remember that one of their charitable objects is ‘to promote kindness’”

Anne Kasica concluded:

“The SHG believes that the CPS should actively quality control all RSPCA prosecutions by taking over and dropping those which are clearly not in the public interest and which no responsible prosecutor would bring.

“The SHG calls for a full public inquiry into the RSPCA and its activities.”

Ends

Word Total: 376

Notes to Editors: -

1. The cruelty allegations against Mr and Mrs Finnie were that they failed to seek the advice of a vet. It was common ground that Michael and Sharon Finnie were treating Pebbles for fleas, but she turned out to have a different skin condition.

2. The case was handled by Clive McKeag, a partner in the Newcastle law firm McKeags. Mr. McKeag is the RSPCA’s lawyer in the North East.

3. Gateshead Magistrates said they would not be making any award for the RSPCA's legal and veterinary costs to be paid from central funds.

4. The bill which the charity has to pay runs to over £2,600.

5. The Magistrates also turned down a request from Mr McKeag for the RSPCA to keep Pebbles – they ordered that Pebbles must be returned to Mr and Mrs Finnie immediately.

The RSPCA have totally lost their way, there should be a full review of their actions regarding prosecution, they are not monitored at all and completely self regulate.The CPS or Police should handle animal welfare prosecutions instead of the RSPCA (WHOM BY ALL MEANS COULD GATHER EVIDENCE) who have a conflict of interest due to publicity AND FINANCES GAINED FROM DONATIONS GENERATED FROM A CASE, their PR department always submits press releases to LOCAL MEDIA ENSURING THAT EACH PROSECUTION CASE IS HIGH PROFILE, this obviously happens also when people are found not guilty.The RSPCA are in a win - win situation, even if they lose the case, they gain financially from the media coverage, they ask for public payment of their costs, even when they lose the case,when the Police prosecute a case they have to present evidence to the CPS to ensure that they stand a reasonable chance of winning, that the evidence is reliable, that there is no conflict of interest. that there is no malice or its not a vexatious prosecution, THIS DOSENT HAPPEN WITH THE RSPCA !!!!TIME FOR A FULL REVIEW, A JUDICIAL ENQUIRY, AND THE SAME SAFEGUARDS THAT THE POLICE HAVE TO ADHERE TO.